Forum Home → Discussion → Other areas of social welfare law → Thread
Nuisance neighbours
We have a client who has problems with nuisance neighbours, noise complaints although there was also an assault on my client earlier in the year.
Problem is that the landlord, Croydon council, is refusing to take any further action on my clients behalf until, and unless they go through mediation. My client is very troubled by this as has agreed to go down the mediation route but in the meantime the noise issues remain, we have seen the clients log of the noise and it seems extreme. The Council have to date visited the neighbours and we understand have issued a ‘warning’ and since then the problem has got worse, perhaps an indication that mediation will not work.
My question is that can the Council state that unless the client agrees to mediation that they will take no further action? It would seem that he Council is operating a blanket policy in this case and adopting a one solution fits all regardless of the facts I.e. my client faces potentially a further prolonged period of having to put it with it with no real conclusion on the horizon.
My client also wanted to know if there is anything that he can do himself I.e. some sort of private case for nuisance etc
I have had a quick look on the Shelter website which suggests that mediation is not appropriate if there has been serious crime (assault) involved, which appears to be relevant to your case.
I think you may need to explore whether a blanket policy is in place as they should be considering demotion of tenancy, eviction etc.
Altered chaos thanks.
I will have a look through the Shelter details, as what you say does make sense.
It is not usually permissible for third parties to be able to enforce terms in a contract that they are not a party to but it is possible as the following case makes clear. The claimant lost on the facts in this case mind. However, the courts will be slow to enforce covenants and will not be best pleased with claimants who rush to litigation where other less formal and cheaper options, such as mediation, are available as the court of appeal makes clear in the following case where it said:
“Of course there are many cases where a strict determination of rights and liabilities is what the parties require. The courts stand ready to deliver such a service to litigants and must do so as expeditiously and economically as practicable. But before embarking upon full blooded adversarial litigation parties should first explore the possibility of settlement. In neighbour disputes of the kind now before the court (and of which I have seen many similar examples) if negotiation fails, mediation is the obvious and constructive way forward.”
And:
““I wish enthusiastically to associate myself with the observations of my Lords on the desirability of mediation in neighbourhood disputes. To repeat what I recently said in Oliver v Symons, a boundary dispute:
“I wish particularly to associate myself with Elias L.J.‘s pointing out that this is a case crying out for mediation. All disputes between neighbours arouse deep passions and entrenched positions are taken as the parties stand upon their rights seemingly blissfully unaware or unconcerned that they are committing themselves to unremitting litigation which will leave them bruised by the experience and very much the poorer, win or lose. It depresses me that solicitors cannot at the very first interview persuade their clients to put their faith in the hands of an experienced mediator, a dispassionate third party, to guide them to a fair and sensible compromise of an unseemly battle which will otherwise blight their lives for months and months to come.”
Not all neighbours are from hell. They may simply occupy the land of bigotry. There may be no escape from hell but the boundaries of bigotry can with tact be changed by the cutting edge of reasonableness skilfully applied by a trained mediator. Give and take is often better than all or nothing.””
If mediation is not possible then try the Council’s environmental health department who have the power to issue noise abatement notices. Environmental Health Officers can issue fines, launch prosecutions and seize equipment. If that doesn’t happen then seek advice about the possibility of getting an injunction.
Case cited above.